Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Do the public have confidence in public institutions?
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7719		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  JD [ Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:51 am ]
Post subject:  Do the public have confidence in public institutions?
The answer in my opinion, is an emphatic, NO!

Regards

JD
Author:  Sussex [ Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Do the public have confidence in public institutions?
JD wrote:
The answer in my opinion, is an emphatic, NO!

Sometimes, when they agree with me I do, but when they don't I don't. :D
Author:  jimbo [ Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'll most likely regret asking, but which institutions are you on about?

The BBC, the NSPCC, the BFI, MFI MI5 MI6?
Author:  JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:09 am ]
Post subject: 
jimbo wrote:
I'll most likely regret asking, but which institutions are you on about?

The BBC, the NSPCC, the BFI, MFI MI5 MI6?


Essentially public authorities.

Broadly speaking, I think we nearly all agree a public authority may be described as an entity or administrative body entrusted with functions to perform for the benefit of the public and not for private profit. Do you agree?

Not every such person or body is expressly defined as a public authority or body and the meaning of a public authority or body may vary according to the statutory context.

The question whether a particular body is or is not a public authority has assumed increased importance since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under that Act, it is unlawful for a 'public authority' to act in a way which is incompatible with those rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which have been incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

For the record I can cite hundreds of cases highlighting corruption in public office of both councillors and local bodies.

I wondered if anyone else shared my opinion that councillors being nothing more than mere human beings and tempted by the opportunity of financial gain could be immune from corruption.

I think history shows that very few human beings are beyond corruption least of all those entrusted with administrative duties.

Regards

JD
Author:  JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:25 am ]
Post subject: 
The Government realised the need for the prevention of corruption back in the 19th century when they passed the "Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889".

Public corruption was just as healthy back then as it is today, ask all those fit and proper councillors who have been convicted of corruption in recent times.

Regards

JD
Author:  JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:31 am ]
Post subject: 
Mr Jimbo, for the purpose of the interpretation of the relevant Act which I previously referred please read as follows then you will know what I meant by public body.

The expression “public body” means any council of a county or county of a city or town, any council of a municipal borough, also any board, commissioners, select vestry, or other body which has power to act under and for the purposes of any Act relating to local government, or the public health, or to poor law or otherwise to administer money raised by rates in pursuance of any public general Act, [and includes any body which exists in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom and is equivalent to any body described above]:

The expression “public office” means any office or employment of a person as a member, officer, or servant of such public body:

The expression “person” includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate:

The expression “advantage” includes any office or dignity, and any forbearance to demand any money or money's worth or valuable thing, and includes any aid, vote, consent, or influence, or pretended aid, vote, consent, or influence, and also includes any promise or procurement of or agreement or endeavour to procure, or the holding out of any expectation of any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage, as before defined.
________________________
Author:  JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I might add that in reference to the "Application of this act in Scotland" the act itself states as follows.

In the application of this Act to Scotland the [sheriff principal and sheriff] shall have jurisdiction to try any offence under this Act; and

The expression “misdemeanor” shall mean “crime and offence”; and

The expression “municipal borough” shall mean any “burgh”.
__________________________________

The reference to Burgh is significant because most of us south of the border might not realise that Burgh means borough of Scotland or in other words local authority. "It doesn't relate to Chris de Burgh".

Regards

JD
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/